This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 90 | ← | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | → | Archive 100 |
Are websites
reliable sources on articles about Roman emperors? Simple as that! :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
At first glance not being a professional I'd be reluctant to consider of them as references (though at the the first two might be quite useful as external links). As already mentioned in the posting above www.roman-emperors.org/ has however some editorial oversight by scholars and claims (most of its) articles are written by scholars, so you could consider it (barely) as a reliable web source, maybe slightly above a self published source by an expert author (see WP:SPS). So if you come across content sourced by it,I'd acceppt it at least temporarily as a reference, but try to replace it by a more reputable one if possible. If the site has a good reputation among historians though, which I don't know, it might be even acceptable without my current hesitation.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Anent Roman emperors - the Seaby's coin references are very good. [1] they contain much material rather hard to get otherwise. Collect ( talk) 20:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) 1660 destruction of Safed was an eye-opening experience. A new editor created an account and with a professed agenda of righting great wrongs--Ottoman cruelty to Jews AND world belief in Ottoman tolerance--created six or so articles in twenty-four hours, sourced to blogs, readers' letters to newspaper websites, polemical non-fact checked books, etc. Some of these articles have now been deleted, while editors have put a tremendous amount of work into fixing the others. In the case of the Safed article, an unsourced statement made in one place that Arabs killed an entire Jewish population in Safed in 1660, proliferated to numerous other unreliable sources and became something "everyone knows" without being sourceable to any primary documents, or respectable secondary sources, anywhere. It appears the historical reality is quite different: the Druze, involved in a rebellion against their Ottoman rulers, sacked Safed, causing most of the inhabitants to flee temporarily. Moral: it is possible to create really polemical crap history using crap sources. A section of WP:RS clarifying preferred sources for historical articles would have been a really great help. Also, responding to Blueboar and Kmhkmh: There is no more work involved in finding sources about the Emperor Constantine on Google Books than is involved in finding them at ilikeemperorconstantine.com. Its the same effort. I don't think anyone will be deterred from creating or editing historical articles if our policy called for a little more rigor, and article quality would benefit greatly. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 15:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between disputed and disputed content and that's exactly why i was talking about correct content above. Of course editors can not use any website (potentially crappy), but the may websites or popular exposee considered as correct/reliable for sourcing basic largerly undisputed content (not crappy). This is a completely different scenario from an editor using arbitrary (unreliable) websites or blogs or engaging in OR using primary sources. Also if there are disputes over content the requirements for (temporary) increase and in doubt only academic peer reviewed sources can be used, but again my posting above referred the large amount of undisputed (historic) content we already have covered and which we still want to cover.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
@Jonathanwallace: And imho you are wrong for lay editors overly rigourous sourcing requirements does mean that there is significantly more work involved and there are access issues. Most academic peer reviewed sources require access to specific university librariers and online databases (usually being paywalled). Google books is great, but often does not provide a full preview and moreover it doesn't even provide access to the sources we want to have ultimately (peer reviewed journal articles, academic monographies). Also picking up random historic treatments in book form is hardly anymore reliable than various websites. Much of the historic nonsense spread overblogs and websites (as in the example you've mentioned) can be found in Google books as well. Why should a book by (reputable/reliable) historian X be anymore reliable than his website? That would be only the case if we restricted ourselves to a limited number of scientific publishers, but for arbitrary mainstream publishing companies, the (additional) editorial control regarding factual correctness is rather lax.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't participated above and I apologise if I am repeating something already said. Roman-emperors.org is very variable. Notably, some pages are fullish and have inline citations (e.g. [5]), some are sketchy and don't (e.g. [6]. Some are speculative, more like essays (e.g. [7]. That one does have inline citations, but years ago, when someone pasted it wholesale into Wikipedia, I began to check the assertions -- and found significant errors -- before I realised it was a copyvio). I would say that each article has to be taken on its merits, on the credentials of the author, on whether it gets cited elsewhere.
I'm not sure how active the site is. The list of pending essays is empty and was last revised in 2006 (whetyher that means that there have been no new pages since 2006, or whether the list has got forgotten, I don't know). And rew D alby 09:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I have been objecting and challenging a biography written about a living person, Vito Roberto Palazzolo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo), written by a man called Don Calo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DonCalo). The discussion has been happening recently at Palazzolo's talk page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#Answering_wikipedia.27s_requirements_in_BLP.2C_Verifiable_Sources.2C_Association_Fallacy_and_Lead
Personal motive
I have been gathering information on Vito Roberto Palazzolo for 3 years now with a view to writing his biography. I have nothing to gain by writing anything (in a book or in Wikipedia) idealizing him or getting him off the hook of his detractors. My single aim is to discover where the fire started that created the smoke, to wit: either Palazzolo was involved in illegal money laundering activities with the Mafia in 1981 and early 1982, or he is the victim if a conspiracy. I am looking at both options and both sides.
The subject
Apropos my plan to write a book: He is an interesting subject in many ways: as a Swiss Banker he was enormously successful and ran the fiduciary arm of one of the world's most prestigious banks; as a Sicilian he arrived on the scene at the bank when some of his inherited clients were laundering money (through Swiss banks) for the the heroin smuggling ring known as the "Pizza Connection", which was famously bust by Rudi Giuliani then Mayor of NY. Palazzolo was accused of many things in many courts thereafter, including money laundering, Mafia membership, drug running and even murder, but was never conclusively sentenced for anything except "dolus eventualis" in Switzerland in 1985, a conviction pitched somewhere between intent and negligence. But the allegations - from Sicily in Palermo - never stopped coming and pursued him even as far as South Africa where he lives now. There is even High Court narrative that mentions an unhealthy and illegal working relationship between Sicily and the Department of Justice in South Africa.
Conspiracy and transparency
What I am saying is that he is an interesting subject for a biography, highlighting many areas, as you can see. His life as a free man, however, defended by the rule of law (now in SA as well as Italy and the European Court of Human Rights), hangs in the balance. It is conceivable, that, given the court evidence over nearly 30 years, Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy and only an open and transparent rendition of his case, with all cards on the table, can either clear his name or indict him.
The media, Don Calo & Wikipedia
But that is not what he is getting in the media and so, by default, Wikipedia. Don Calo, who writes the Wikipedia biography of Palazzolo, uses only media articles as his source. Primarily scurrilous newspapers like the Mail & Guardian and the Sunday Independent. And so when people go to Wikipedia, the first port of call for knowledge about anyone or anything in the world, they get a biased, indeed, slanderous view of a man who, from the point of view of the High Courts in Switzerland, Italy and South Africa, is innocent. That may not be so but he must be given the opportunity in court, the media and at Wikipedia, for a free and fair trial.
All I am asking is that because this is a highly complex and long running affair, Palazzolo gets better treatment from Wikipedia. By which I mean specialist and comprehensive and fair, which one man reading the tabloid press, cannot do.
See below a few of the Points I have made in regard to Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and fairness in respect to a living person.
Reliable sources - You say that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This is the central part of my argument with Don Calo. I have to say again that the tabloid press, particularly in South Africa, is absolutely not a reliable source.
Significant Coverage - In Notability ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability), Wikipedia speaks of Significant Coverage: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. This speaks for itself. Palazzolo needs significant coverage, which Don Calo does not provide.
Exceptional Coverage - In Verifiability ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), Wikipedia speaks of Exceptional Coverage: "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. (This comes under "Exceptional claims" that require exceptional, high-quality sources)." This too is transparently clear. Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy (very hard to prove, for obvious reasons), and certainly claims the fact, in court.
Specialised subjects From How accurate is Wikipedia? ( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/10/wikipedia.php): "My very tentative conclusion, based on a just few sample queries, is that I hope no one relies on Wikipedia for anything very important. Its entries seem to be a strange mix of accurate statements and egregious errors.... Where wikipedia breaks down is in very specialised subjects, where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong." Palazzolo is a very specialised subject.
Casual innuendo From Reliability in Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) the effect that Casual Innuendo in Wikipedia can have on the life of a living person: "Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. It won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia."
Systematic Bias - Also mentioned in Reliability: "Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices." This also applies.
Multiple, non-trivial published works - Also mentioned in Reliability and "Notability of article topics", comes a comment from Timothy Noah ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Noah) - To be notable, a Wikipedia topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." This is not the case with Wikipedia's Palazzolo.
Avoid gossip and feed-back loops - This is also mentioned in Reliability, this is the Information Loop where poorly sourced or biased information is fed to newspapers as fact, taken up by Wikipedia and fed back to newspapers, in turn. This applies.
Miss-use of Primary sources
These are just a few pointers regarding my contention with Wikipedia's article on Palazzolo. I have a great deal more on this subject, which is very complicated. What else would you like me to present to you and how can we lay this ghost to rest, because a living person is very insulted by the singular, one-sided, ill-informed line that Don Calo (Wikipedia) is taking.
Fircks ( talk) 17:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I responded here on the advice of Bbb23 (I suggest you take your contention to WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC))
I went into the Wiki foundation page and was informed that: "Hi! Please note that this page is only for discussing http://wikimediafoundation.org, the official Wikimedia Foundation website". So I expressed my concerns by sending an email to info@wikimedia.org. I could post a copy here but don't want to take up too much space repeating my case. In the meantime I am discussing the article with Bbb23 and Don Calo, who has today weighed into the conversation.
Fircks ( talk) 10:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your informed opinions. I realize that Palazzolo's case comes out of left-field, it is unique and requires special handling and to have been able to bring it this far, to you, is testament to wikipedia's credibility.
I know that trial transcripts are not allowed, according to your rule book. I don't want to hammer my case relentlessly but, given what has happened to this man, Palazzolo, and how it has happened, we have stumbled upon something both unique and important. When his story is written, Wikipedia and the given world view on people with unique biographies, will make up a large chapter. So I wish to point out that:
Fircks (
talk) 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I know I am taking up a lot of space on these pages but this is a complex case, all for the purposes of getting a fair hearing (in the media, therefore on wikipedia) for a living man who claims he is the victim of a conspiracy. What if he is? Shouldn't you see and review his story? His democratic and legal rights rest on your shoulders. Shouldn't you do him the honour (as per your rules on BLP) of an in-depth study of his case?
Please look at this one. If it's proof you want, I have it, and there is no stone I will not overturn for the sake of justice.
Fircks ( talk) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I see what you are saying, that Wikipedia is not a battleground for my crusade to exonerate Palazzolo. Which I understand fully, and neither do I want to do that. Perhaps my emotive language gave the wrong impression.
I am not interested in taking Palazzolo off the hook if he is guilty, or using Wikipedia as his personal bandwagon. But I do want to apply Wikipedia's rules as fairly as possible which, as you know, are descriptive and not prescriptive, are about the underlying principle at play, but NOT about wikilawyering, are NOT about rules so much as good judgement, etc. And their fixed star is a Neutral Point of View, which is the following:
As it stands the article is:
So, using your guidelines, specifically, Palazzolo is owed a fair hearing. By which I mean that every court charge must be written into his BLP, as well as the concomitant ruling. You can't pick and choose court charges, rulings or sentences at will. They must all be mentioned (in order) and so get a broad, balanced view of the subject. Often there are years between the charge and the final ruling, but no matter. Often there is a subtext to the sentence or the ruling, which helps to fill in the missing pieces in the jigsaw. Which is why I always stated that this is a long complex case that very few people understand, least of all journalists in search of Mafia type headlines, (for whom Palazzolo is a Godsend).
Without using emotive language I must somehow express the single vital fact that Palazzolo deserves a fair hearing. The reason being that this is no ordinary BLP. By which I mean his case is: Significant (requiring more than just a routine news report), Special ("where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong") and Exceptional ("When proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them").
Written mostly in High Court journals and lawyers affidavits, his case is unique and so, above all else, we need both sides of the story; one is the prosecution, and the other is the defence (and counter prosecution). Then let the reader decide.
Fircks ( talk) 19:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. From "Understanding IAR" - "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way." The better way gives both sides (prosecution and defence) of Palazzolo's story. The rules say that Judges verdicts and carefully worded arguments by lawyers are inadmissible in a wiki BLP about a contentious figure, but the tabloid press is OK. For which reason Wikipedia can say, "The newspaper said Palazzolo was convicted of drug smuggling." And Palazzolo can never say, "The Judge acquitted me of that charge (drug smuggling), and said it was crazy to have brought the charge against me in the first place." Etc, etc.
Isn't it high time not to IAR, but to ignore THAT rule?
Thank you...
Fircks ( talk) 19:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Have I been barking up the wrong tree? I've been doing the rounds, following all the rules, dealing with them each in turn, following advice and all the time all I ask is that wikipedia give Palazzolo a fair hearing. There has been a lot of discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#The_article_is_a_mess, for example.
To date this has been my progress at Wikipedia:
OK, fingers crossed, because Don Calo's defamatory BLP remains intact and according to wikipedia's rules, that can't go on.
Thank you in any event.
Fircks ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to quote Freedom House as a reliable source in the article Northern Cyprus? After much wrangling have managed to tone down the language to the following:
"Freedom House has classified the perceived level of democratic and political freedom in Northern Cyprus as "free" since 2000 in its Freedom in the World report. [8]
However, I am still of the opinion that Freedom House cannot be used as a reliable source for the following reasons:
1. It is an advocacy organization concerning human rights.
2. 80 per cent of its funding comes from the government of the United States (the United States has military bases in Turkey, and Turkey has maintained a military occupation in the northern part of Cyprus since 1974).
3. The ratings that are being issued, concerning the quality of democracy (and human rights), do not appear to take reality in to consideration (for example, there is no consideration for the owners of the vast majority of land and property, as acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the displaced persons who were displaced during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and who are not allowed to return to their homes and who have no right to vote despite legally owning most of the land and property in "Northern Cyprus").
4. Even use of the word "perceived" which explains that the rating is based on perceptions and not the actual situation legitimizes a rating which has no bearing on reality.
5. Not even the enclaved are considered. The enclaved are christian Cypriots who remained in villages after the invasion (pockets of christianity within an occupied muslim territory) and their freedom of movement is severely restricted to the point that individuals who leave these villages for hospital treatment are not allowed to return to their homes by the occupation regime. More information about the enclaved can be read at:
http://www.cyprusnet.com/content.php?article_id=2880&subject=standalone
Nipsonanomhmata
(Talk) 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
This seems like one of our regular "admissibility" vs. "weight" disputes. I agree with Nipsonanomhmata that majority funding by the U.S. government (if correct) would put the independence of the organization into question, but it is being referenced for its own opinion, not an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Therefore, the best compromise is to cite it in the wording given above, balanced by well sourced opposing viewpoints. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 11:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The Pioneer fund is the subject of various serious accusations. Are they allowed to present their view on this according to "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" on the Pioneer fund page? This being an example where they present their view on various accusations against them: [11] Miradre ( talk) 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess the best way to resolve this would be to seek guidance on the question of how one determines the extent to which an organization like the Pioneer Fund is allowed to defend itself against it's critics in the article. I'm sure the answer lies somewhere between "not at all" and "point by point argument, counter argument, and rebuttal". Likewise guidelines for inclusion criticism would also be useful. aprock ( talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Miradre is continuing to lobby for the use of Lynn's history on Talk:Pioneer Fund. [15] He cites a book by Helmuth Nyborg as a positive review, which he claims is written by someone who has not received a grant from the Pioneer Fund. However, Lynn's history states (P 354), "In 1996 the Pioneer Fund made a grant to Helmut Nyborg of the University of Aarhus in Denmark to study the effects of inbreeding in Daghestan in the Northern Caucasus of the former Soviet Union." So Nyborg is a Pioneer grantee. Mathsci ( talk) 08:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The point of asking this here is to get feedback from uninvolved editors. From the fact that Mathsci was sanctioned in the arbitration case linked to by Miradre, it's obvious that he's a long-time combatant in this topic area. It's not helpful that this discussion is being dominated by clearly involved editors. As far as I can tell, only one truly uninvolved person (Collect) has commented on this request, who has said that we should err on the side of giving an organization a chance to defend itself. Miradre, do you think that's enough of an answer, or should you get more feedback from uninvolved editors? Boothello ( talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The original question was "The Pioneer fund is the subject of various serious accusations. Are they allowed to present their view on this according to "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" on the Pioneer fund page?" The first answer is that "they" should not be presenting "their" view: if done at all, it should be done by editors with no conflict of interest. The second is that the extent to which the accusations and their rebuttals should be presented is not a matter for this board, but, as stated above, the article talk page. The only aspect of the original question relevant here is, the extent to which the Pioneer Fund's own publications are reliable sources. They should be reliable for their own opinions (supporting statements such as "The Pioneer Fund's position on X is Y") and for noncontroversial, nonselfinterested data about themselves (although a consensus might need to be formed about whether such statements should be qualified by "According to the Pioneer Fund, Z") and independent sources for the latter would always be preferred. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus ( talk) 06:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Byliner purports in their press release to be a serious publisher run by experienced editors. Their inaugural work is an article by Jon Krakauer about Greg Mortenson. Mortenson was the subject of a 60 Minutes expose broadcast yesterday, and the Krakauer article makes similar allegations. Krakauer was an early supporter of Mortenson's foundation, and a respected author of non-fiction. If Krakauer self-published the article it would not be usable for assertions about the BLP, but I would think that it would be usable for assertions about the related charitable foundation. It is not self-published, but it is published by a source with no reputation good or bad, for fact-checking and accuracy. What do people think about using this as a source for the Mortenson biography? Will Beback talk 01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There's also a short report by al Jazeera English now : [18]-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 16:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Related to this discussion at WP:AN, I would like to get the community's input on the reliability of Wisegeek.com as a source. Previous discussions can be found here and here.
Also, as part of this discussion, should links to Wisegeek be removed from articles? Links being links in the external links section and links in the references section. Previous discussions did not get much input, so the more input the better. Thanks. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 07:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Freelance Writing Jobs!
We pay writers per article. Current rates range from $10 to $14 depending on the article topic. Writers know exactly how much they will receive for writing an article before locking it.
wiseGEEK writers are asked to write at least five articles per week, or 20 articles a month, on average.
Apply now!— [19]
I think this discussion has now reached a consensus. As I see it, there seems no controversy at all about wisegeek links which are not directly used as cites, so I'm now going to do a quick pass down my list and remove any of the remaining wisegeek links that are not used directly as a cite, or are used as a cite where another cite is also given, or where the article is a medical article. I'll then revisit the more complex cases a bit later. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Are Herodotus's history books considered primary source or they are secondary sources? Specially when it comes to ancient Greece history?-- Penom ( talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Al-Masudi, a well-known historian in middle-east(born c. 896, died September 956), wrote a history book named The Meadows of Gold. In his book, he talks about the events from centuries before he was born until his own time. My question: Is The Meadows of Gold considered a primary source for the events that took place before Al-Masudi's birth? Kazemita1 ( talk) 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am having issues with WLU on appropriate sourcing. He/She/They deletes info and says it is not allowed without "helping" in any manner. I would like to know if this source is ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Suzanne_Segal&diff=424898476&oldid=424881789 I called the Institute and cited them as a source after they confirmed my question. Since it is a "contactable source" is this valid, or how can I better make reference? Or is just the name sufficient since it is a "real" entitiy? Thank you. Vanlegg ( talk) 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this source, Encyclopaedia of the Muslim World, reliable for referencing? It appears from the Sigurimi article to use Wikipedia as its source. It has also been referenced elsewhere on the project as a source. It seems that large tracts of text have been incorporated into this article from other published sources eg Albania - A Country Study. RashersTierney ( talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The sentence in the first paragraph of the Kent Hovind article that reads "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is a POV sentence which of course violates Wikipedia's neutrality clause for its articles. It then uses as its source a website called Talk Origins which is heavily biased towards evolution and misrepresents some of its claim. Here is an example of what I am talking about:
First, the footnotes to that sentence link to talkorigins.org, which is a pro-evolution site so it is clearly not even an objective source. Second, the footnotes in question from talkorigins misrepresent their sources. In reponse to Hovind's claim that the geological column does not exist anywhere except in textbooks, they state, "John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!" However, that statement by talkorigins is contradicted by Mr. Morappe himself who had this to say in an article titled, "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?" : "Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did. This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,[9] as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article."
Morappe also goes on to say towards the end of his article, "There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field. " "The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?
Talkorigins then goes on to cite as another peice of evidence a second-hand relay of a phonecall between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton. the same Glenn Morton who Morappe disputed in the paragraph above. So to say that this is research and scientific evidence is TOTALLY not accurate and clearly point of view. The proper sentence in the first paragraph should read, "Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists," which is a factual and objective sentence
Since the source cited is not an objective source and heavily biased, I would like the inclusion of this source contested as a reliable source, and the sentence tagged as a POV sentence. Thank you. Dimestore ( talk) 14:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there's a quite complex issue at Diego Arria over the inclusion of the Commons image File:HaciendaLaCarolina.jpg, which is being used to make a factual claim, and the source for the image (a blog) isn't reliable (per WP:RS). (The blog is the personal blog of User:Attarparn, who is the person who uploaded the image and inserted it into the article.) The matter could rest there, except after I initially removed the image, an OTRS ticket materialised on Commons, being an email from Attarparn forwarding permission to use the image from Diego Arria. I don't know to what extent this can be accepted as reliable verification, rather than mere permission for use of the image. (Apart from anything else, the most it could verify is what Arria claims the image shows, unless some independent source can verify the date and subject.)
I posted at WP:BLPN and got no answer. I posted at the Commons OTRS board and got some clarification. I concluded that the OTRS ticket was resolved in a manner that indicates the image cannot be used in a Wikipedia article in any way that makes a factual claim (and I can't see how any use of it can avoid doing that). So, where do we go from here? Attarparn (now signing as realname "Dr Ulf Erlingsson") continues to want to have the image in the article with a factual-claim caption that has no reliable source as far as I can see. Rd232 talk 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well I guess the current form is OK, with caption "La Carolina taken by Diego Arria one month before the expropriation, according to Arria.". Though it still makes a BLP claim sourced to a Commons upload/ OTRS ticket. Rd232 talk 07:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
THIS site. I couldn't see anything about whether it has a writing staff or not, plus I'm not great at judging these things. I'm looking to cite it in the article Manhunter (film), to support that the film won the Critics Award at the Cognac Festival du Film Policier. The quote in the article is:
The thriller introduced the character of cannibalistic psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter, then played by Brian Cox, and brought Mann a Critics Award from the Cognac Festival du Film Policier and a nomination for Best Motion Picture at the 1987 Edgar Allan Poe Awards.
I'm looking to use this citation to replace the current citation of the film's IMDB page, which is understandably suspect. GRAPPLE X 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
in the case of longevity claims? I think it is. The World's Oldest People WikiProject could use some outside guidance here. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 13:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Which source did you wish to discuss the reliability of? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus ( talk) 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
How do we stand regarding this issue? For exemple, do we accept a work of a Palestinian historian to source Israeli historical events, or basicaly any work of someone who can potentialy have a conflict of interess regarding the issue debating? FkpCascais ( talk) 00:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Science in medieval Islam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Opinions requested regarding the reliability of Sandra Harding's Is Science Multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies: Indiana University Press, 1998
Pages 28-29 and 35 are used in support of the following paragraph
The civilization of ancient Greece was centered on the eastern Mediterranean and northern Africa, and did not interact with most of Europe.[1] When Greek learning was later discovered and claimed by European science during the Renaissance, it was not the ancient Greek knowledge, but rather the result of centuries of refinements and advances based upon that knowledge by scientists from Islamic civilization.[2][3]
Thanks - Aquib ( talk) 12:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I was curious if this is a reliable source, and also if it's apporpriate to Wikipedia for the characters it mentions in articles about them. http://www.cracked.com/article_17400_the-8-shittiest-transformer-disguises.html Mathewignash ( talk) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
An editor is seeking to add this information into the article Salome:
"According to "Letter of Herod To Pilate the Governor", Herod's daughter was playing in the pool with ice on the surface until it broke under and decapitated her. With Herod's wife holding holding her daughters head.
In the passage Herod to Pontius Pilate the Governor of Jerusalem, Peace:
First as an Ip with this edit [21], then when they created an account with these edits [22](which I reverted with this edit summary "material from self published site that may be real or not, no names, publisher or other info given") and [23], which they cite to [1] [2] these two sources. As the 2 websites they used dont seem to have any editorial, publisher, names etc. I question their use as a reliable sources, and the book I do not have access to, so can not check. Does anyone have access to the book and what are the opinions on the websites? I want to know before I either remove the info or rewrite it so it is comprehensible. Thoughts? and thanks in advance. He iro 18:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
References
In Islamic schools and branches article's lead there is a sentence sayingThere is a hadith which states "differences of opinion in my community are a blessing". Is this line really necessary to be in introductory section?
Again the source hadith is not very authentic.
In here I really disagree that the hadith is authentic and I even not asked for source there. I found that the description source, (i.e. the order of who descried the hadith) is not a very strong one and this hadith may be considered as a weak or non-auhtentic hadith to many Islamic scholars. So, my suggestion is to remove this disputable hadith. Only finding a hadith do not make it authentic, there are method of classifying hadith in regard to authenticity. -- নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh talk | contribs 08:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I took a brief look at the other two sources given above. One is a snippet view of a student publication (which does not automatically make it not reliable, American law reviews which are respectable sources are edited by students) which says that some think the hadith is false. Snippet views are suspect as sources because sometimes the full text is quite different than what the snippet indicates. The other book is a publication by the Islamic Supreme Council of America, about page here. Presented in excerpt view, it indeed mentions the hadith in a footnote, without further analysis or discussion of its antecedents. I therefore think use of the hadith in the lede, which was peripheral to the main issues discussed in the first place, really raises more questions than it answers, and that it was best to take it out. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 10:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have been working with a Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks ( BPOE) historian, Norm Donovan. We are trying to capture the history of local Elks lodges' creation date, mergers, disbanding, etc. This fraternity spans over 130 years of american history and the official records are spotty. Therefor we feel that Wikipedia is a great archive for this information as well as a way to reach out to others who may be able to fill in the content about their local lodge. We also feel this could be a great starting point for each local Elks lodge to spur their local history page. We believe there is little controversy or opinion on this page.
I am concerned as to how to cite the source of our original collection. The wiki page in question is Elks lodges. Here are our current sources posted online.
http://www.tommyjones.org/salisburyelks/elkshistory/miscdocuments/lodgeNameNumber/030208.NUM.doc
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomhung357 ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 April 2011
You might consider going to http://www.wikia.com/Wikia and starting your own Elkapedia. That way you could compile unpublished research, oral histories, and other things that might not pass muster on Wikipedia. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Commons has a photo that was downloaded from flickr. The photo shows people standing in a posed group in normal street clothing. The flickr page claims it is a netball team in Malawi, but the person who uploaded the photo to flickr is not the Wikipedia editor who uploaded it to Commons. Is flickr a reliable source for the fact that this is not some other group of people? This situation will come up many times in the future. Racepacket ( talk) 18:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
My immediate response was "no", but as noted the standard is "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images". The publisher is contactable on flickr, the date, time, and place of the photon is given, so it's theoretically verifiable, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt his description. The publisher of a photo would be an RS for the content of the photo. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 20:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
To me it is a question of credibility. When I upload a photo to Wikipedia, I know it is supposed to be serious and earnest. However, when someone uploads a photo with caption to flickr, it can be tonge in cheek or a practical joke intended for a limited audience. How does Wikipedia know that the flickr caption was written in good faith? Racepacket ( talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
We should not apply the full standards of reliable sources to pictures. If there was *any* indication in the picture to indicate these were netball players, I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think generally we should trust photographers to not stage fake photos. So, I'll trust this photo is exactly what it appears to be. It appears to be a bunch of a women standing around, wearing clothes, that are incompatible with playing sports like netball. It might be useful in illustrating what some women in the area wear. The photo really has nothing to do with netball. Netballers are not some unique special looking people. The reader viewing the photo will not be better informed of what a netballer looks like. Perhaps there are some sports where the players have a very unique look (like Sumo wrestlers or jockies), and a photo of some players would help illustrate this. Even then, that would apply to the elites (it would be stupid if I did Sumo wrestling, and then photographed myself later in plain clothes, and said that was what Canadian Sumo wrestlers looked like). -- Rob ( talk) 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The caption should be verifiable and sourced (which it is not), and I find the arguments advanced by Rob to be far more convincing than the responses offered by the image proponents. We need to guard against editors finding obscure pictures on flickr and then insisting on their inclusion in articles just to show off how they can find a really obscure photo. Do we need a group photo in street clothes of the Jamaican bobsled team or should we use a photo taken at the Winter Olympics? The talk page says, "The point of the picture is to illustrate who plays netball in Malawi. It is not intended to illustrate a game of netball being played in Malawi." If the text of the article does not describe or characterize the demographics of who plays netball in Malawi, how can we justify including a photo in the article on such a rationale? Finally, should the picture's caption have a footnote? Racepacket ( talk) 21:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Personal animosities aside, how can you tell from the picture they are netball team? It seems a poor illustration to begin with, not being self-evident. So it requires a citation to make that claim in the article (even just in the caption). Is the flickr photographer who took/posted it a WP:RS? Tijfo098 ( talk) 23:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've been expanding Nobody's Perfect article, but there are some claims that some sources I initially provided are unreliable, however they provide some key informations (physical release date, impact date, videoclip review), so I'd like to know if these [25] [26] [27] [28] are reliable, thanks in advance. Regards Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 01:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Boxer Rebellion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:John Smith's has attempted to use a Book written by an author with zero academic credentials, as a source, despite the fact that the book claims war crimes are the result of a "generational sin pattern", and that christianity is the one true religion and everything else is essentially lies.
the only thing about him when i googled him that stated his credentials were- Esther C. Stanley is a published author. A published credit of Esther C. Stanley is Abundance of Rain.
Absolutely NO Phd, degrees, MB, or anything in General history at all, let along chinese history.
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books"
Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources
Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#According_to_you_then.2C_everything_is_unprovable
Abundance of Rain is NOT a reliable source. A book that says- "We can see in chinese history how broken covenants and violations of god's laws, judgements, and bitter root expectations have sown curses and reaped violence, revenge, and murder" does NOT qualify as a reliable source.
Mr. Stanley is a christian, and writes from a christian POV. Now, being a christian is not an impediment to reliability, but having no academic credentials and writing from a religious christian POV is. The aim of his book is to glorify christianity and claim all other religions are false. He has no academic credentials whatsover, let alone credentials in China or history.
I might as well quote "lord of the rings" or "harry potter", and claim wizards really exist here on wikipedia.
Now, suppose I give John Smith some leeway, and allow that Esther C. Stanley, despite the fact that his entire book is about how christianity is the one true religion and all non christians are damned to torture and suffering, and claims atrocities are the result of a "generational sin pattern" that he did use some citations, like Forsychth and "The boxer rising" (not neutral by the way, since they were made by the American Bible Society), that did state how many Chinese christians were murdered. However, at the last sentence regarding rape , torture, and mutilation, he provides no source!- [33]
And I have removed the edit that User:John Smith's made. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 21:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The dispute is reseolved, this can be archived now. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The website baseball-reference.com is a highly-regarded baseball statistics website, frequently used as the primary reference on WP. However, it has a wiki called the BR Bullpen. Most of its material was copied from WP in 2006, but can and has been updated since. Since it is also a wiki, sourcing can be a problem. Therefore, isn't this a fork and shouldn't it be disqualified as a source or external link (not 100% of the time of course). There is a Template:Bullpen that is concerning (it seems to be used mainly in the baseball portal). Here are the pages that use the Bullpen website: [34]. I was going to add the site to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks but figured I should check here first. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log-off.) -- 64.85.220.34 ( talk) 06:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(Let me know if this should be at BLPN instead - I wasn't sure.)
In this edit, I removed these statements from Hamas school bus attack:
In lead:
A Palestinian Authority official commented that "the bus wasn't that badly damaged", adding that Israel is racist and apartheid.
In body:
Omar al-Ghoul, senior advisor to Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, said on Palestinian Authority television: "The bus wasn't that badly damaged. Israel uses the attack on the bus as an excuse for its latest war crime against our people. Israel is a country that was founded on aggression and colonialism and it lives on the continuation of bloodshed, war and violence. The racist Israeli apartheid aggression is currently focused on Gaza, under the pretext of a shell being fired at an Israeli bus."
This is cited to this article from the Christian Broadcasting Network. Jalapenos do exist restored the text without commenting on the source's reliability.
I searched further in Google News and couldn't find it anywhere else but in other laughably partisan sources. I argue that if al-Ghoul really did make this statement, we should be able to find a real source on it, not a source whose agenda includes discrediting Palestinians. Absent a real source for this claim, it should be removed per WP:V and WP:BLP.
-- Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this source sufficient to cite the claim that "He [Cottrell] also served in an editorial role for the "liberal/progressive" magazine Adventist Today, [1] and was a consulting editor to Spectrum magazine." on the Raymond Cottrell article? BelloWello ( talk) 22:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Arthur Nelson Patrick possesses a relevant PhD from a research intensive Australian university (Newcastle, 1991: "Christianity and culture in colonial Australia [manuscript]: selected Catholic, Anglican, Wesleyan and Adventist perspectives, 1891-1900"). While he has had a limited research career (two books, one his PhD, both by partisan presses of a higher quality), he is an expert in religious history. As such Arthur Patrick (2009) A brief, annotated introduction to the field of adventist studies for higher degree students (unpublished) Cooranbong, NSW: Avondale College. (available online) is reliable for the statement that "He [Cottrell] also served in an editorial role for the "liberal/progressive" magazine Adventist Today, [1] and was a consulting editor to Spectrum magazine." on Raymond Cottrell. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Another editor and I disagree over whether the following text with the following source is permissible at Transgender. I hope to have the input of other editors to help forestall the obvious edit war:
The essay appears on Dr. Lawrence' website. So, the essay is a WP:SPS, but becuase she is a well-published expert in the field of that essay (transsexualism), her comments are a legit WP:RS for the above statement.
At least, that's my view.
Examples of Anne Lawrence' published scholarship on the topic include:
Her complete c.v. is also downloadable from her website:
http://www.annelawrence.com/lawrence_cv.pdf
So, my question is the basic one: Is Lawrence' SPS a legit RS for the above claim?
— James Cantor (
talk) 01:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Is
Atari HQ (also called Atari Gaming Headquarter) high-quality enough to be considered a reliable source?
It's a gaming website that has been recognized with awards by
USA Today,
Entertainment Weekly, and
several others. The staff seems to be quite small, but it consists of
Les Caron (more or less unknown, but the founder of the website),
Keita Iida (a published video game commentator who has been cited here at WP several times in several articles), and
Marty Goldberg (another published video game commentator writing for Retro Gamer magazine, and former site director/editor of GameSpy/IGN's ClassicGaming.Com). The website has been cited by several other video game websites that are considered reliable (e.g.
kotaku citation,
1up citation,
gamespy citation, etc.) and it is also cited by numerous WP articles. From my brief review of it, the information appears to be factually accurate and well-written. But there have been some questions regarding its reliability recently. I've invited the relevant parties to review the discussion I'm starting here, but I am most interested in outside (3rd party) views. Thanks. -
Thibbs (
talk) 20:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: A few more reliable sources that have cited or otherwise given notice to Atari HQ include: Wired magazine and a number of books including Apple Confidential 2.0: The Definitive History of the World's Most Colorful Company, Design and Use of Serious Games, and Phoenix The Rise and Fall of Videogames. - Thibbs ( talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
first source - Would that be considered a RS for a fan made remake of Maniac Mansion or even the original? 陣 内 Jinnai 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for facts related to the Israeli-Arab conflict? The website ( [37]) provides no details about the people behind it, just a PO box address and a phone number, alongside an info@... e-mail address. It seems like an advocacy site, featuring "Move over, AIPAC" logos and an "Israeli Lobby Archive". A Google News search shows not a single mainstream source quoting its research ( http://www.google.com/search?q=Institute+for+Research+Middle+Eastern+Policy+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=diX&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22Institute+for+Research+Middle+Eastern+Policy%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2f302dc92096f810), just two press releases issued by the group itself and one blog carrying a reprint of an article form the "Israeli Lobby Archive". Two for the show ( talk) 21:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
IRmep appears to be in the business of declassifying documents and then providing analysis. For example, they declassified the FBI file of Abraham Feinberg, a major Israel lobbyist, revealing that he was a draft-dodger, Israeli nuclear weapons funding coordinator, and smuggler.
Since most of the content that Wikipedia references to IRmep's Israel lobby archive are from government organizations, there doesn't appear to be any issue about their credibility. It appears that many Zionists do not like the fact that they publish declassified documents. But as far as the rules go, there isn't (yet) any reason to ban a great source of information for not being just another Israeli parastatal org.
An editor has contended at Talk:Russophobia that RIA Novosti is a reliable source—without reservation, and suggested that should an editor feel otherwise they bring the issue here. RIA Novosti is the official media outlet of the Russian government. As such, general considerations of reliability aside, I maintain that where RIA Novosti reports on areas of contention between itself and its near-abroad neighbors, it can be held to be reliable only insofar as it reflects the official Russian position, and should regarding all topics in such ares of contention (Baltic states, Waffen SS, Nazis; frozen conflict zone: Transnistria, South Ossetia, et al.,...) be appropriately attributed (i.e., official Russian source, Russian source, etc.) and not be represented to be objectively reliable. At the article, the specific example centers around a Latvian individual who was a member of the Waffen SS Latvian Legion. The position of the Russian government is that the Latvian Legion were SS war criminals convicted at Nuremberg—when, in fact, the Latvian Legion served as Allied guards during the trials. Accordingly, any declaration by RIA Novosti regarding Latvia, the Latvian Legion, and Nazism in this particular case—and regarding other geopolitical/historical areas of conflict—can only be represented as official Russian opinion.
I should mention that in the past, editors favorable to the official Russian position regarding these areas of contention have maintained that RIA Novosti is the Russian equivalent of the British BBC. Nothing could be a further misrepresentation as the BBC is an independent news organization while RIA Novosti (also including their English language TV presence and web site, Russia Today) is most certainly not.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
RIA Novosti is a 100% reliable source and widely used as such in the academic world and the world press. Like most media organisations, in addition to plain news they publish all kinds of opinions - those which are highly critical of the state and those which are not. The specific piece which caused Vecrumba to launch this thread is [40] - and there is nothing wrong with it. The author is Aleksander Vasilyev, Member of the Board and Executive Director of the Baltic Forum [41], a credible expert. Simply because an editor doesn't like one opinion piece is no grounds for calling the publisher an unreliable source. Vecrumba has provided no evidence to support his claim. If no evidence to support the claim is provided, editors are forced to only judge the claim by Vecrumba's own credibility. Nanobear ( talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (refactored) Nanobear ( talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion to bring this here was more in jest, seeing as attempts to exclude Russian sources from WP has been the modus operandi of numerous editors for sometime now, most often in their attempts to present WP:TRUTH (their version of the truth). Take for example Talk:Lists_of_most_common_surnames#RIA_Novosti.27s_scope_of_reliability where that verifiable fact that Ivanov is the most common surname in Estonia was removed from the article based only on the fact that RIA Novosti was the outlet responsible for printing what was inserted. Nevermind that it quoted an Estonian source, which in turn referred to the census, the mere fact that RIA Novosti printed it was enough reason to remove the information from the article --- of course based purely on it presenting information that one doesn't want to see because it casts doubts on their facts and truth. I never said thaat at any stage that RIA Novosti is reliable "without reservation" but as I have said many times it meets the requirements of WP:RS as much as any Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian, European, American media outlet.
I do wonder if we would be having this discussion if http://www.chas-daily.com was being used as a source -- it is the largest Russian-language media source in Latvia, and often takes a harsh line on official Baltic histiography.
As is the case with all media outlets, as noted below, is opinion must be separated from fact, and attributed accordingly. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 22:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I have no objection to using Russian or even Soviet sources, I have used the Concise Latvian SSR Encyclopedia and other Soviet era sources. I only object to the opinion of the (departed Soviet or) Russian government sourced as factual and objective without being attributed to an official source. That Lācis is a Nazi is at best an opinion (aside from BLP issues) and should be attributed. Period. There is no
WP:DISCRIMINATION in doing that. The concept and function of Russian state media is a Soviet anachronism and I find that anyone would paint it as equivalent to western media outlets such as CNN quite remarkable.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 15:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime, we've pretty much had a rehash along party (no pun intended) lines, that is, an airing out of the status quo on both sides of the issue by interested parties. Some outside observations would be helpful. Perhaps if all participating here to date promised not to bite...
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
How are the credentials of Voice of Russia viewed? I wish to use it as a source for some information regarding the current civil war in Libya. I do know that Russian state sources are viewed as being on the sketchy side of things, so I wanted to come here to see if a *NEUTRAL* party could weigh in. That means you guys above me should refrain from commenting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 22:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I would invite participants of the discussion above this one to not participate in this discussion so we don't repeat the same discussion (as anticipated and originally requested by the editor posing their question). And let's dispense with Putin eating babies, such rhetoric only polarizes the discussion and immediately drives off any outside editors. No one is going to enter a discussion where ludicrous contentions are being made which reduce the discourse to yet another nationalist on nationalist mud wrestling match. I will keep my participation to the section above.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 15:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Does this self-published book that lists a previous version of the page, or this page which does not even mention the word "progressive" sufficient sourcing to say, "Some feel his [Cottrell's] veiws label Cottrell as a " progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment.", or would it fail under WP:RS, WP:SYN, WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR? BelloWello ( talk) 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Cottrell could be labeled a "progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment.[14] While mostly dormant during his academic years, Cottrell's progressive/reinterpretative views began to increasingly manifest themselves after retirement.
Cottrell was a founder of Adventist Today,[6] a liberal/progressive Adventist magazine first published in 1993. He and others at Loma Linda had conceived of the idea for a new magazine in the Autumn of the previous year.[12] As well as contributing articles, he was editor and had the title of editor emeritus for the remainder of his life.[6]
Just like the other source says "discontinued" right? I know they are 2 separate issues but I figured I would use your own logic. Fountainviewkid ( talk) 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
See discussion above, the question is, is this self-published book on the web a reliable source for the purpose of verifying ""Some feel his [Cottrell's] veiws label Cottrell as a " progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment."? BelloWello ( talk) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
In a recent edit, content was added referenced to the website in question that appears to be an advocacy organization. Furthermore in this specific edit, it does not link to specific content that supports the newly added material.
More over, in looking at this article, I have found other edits by the user that use the same source which I am creating this new entry on ( see the change in the San Diego article which adds basically the same content, same at the Coronado article, etc.); also the choice of the user name may fall under WP:ORGNAME. I hope that by bringing this up, that this is not considered WP:HOUND. I want to assume good faith, and see that the editor is doing what they believe is best by adding content from a source that they have a vested interest in, however to advocate said interest with a reference that may not be a reliable source questions any material attributed to it. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Keeping with WP:CANVASSING#Appropriate notification, I am inviting editors from appropriate WikiProjects relating the the Chula Vista article to this discussion. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Third opinions are required and solicited. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
In the past this source was not seen as reliable and was quickly dismissed as a WP:SPS. However, per WP:IRS, the source is published, and has editorial oversight. Furthermore, as the material that it is documenting is usually that of historical markers placed by history organizations, or government entities, the information provided on the marker themselves can usually be referenced elsewhere. I ask as I am seeking to use information from the following page.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Third opinions are required and solicited. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 90 | ← | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | → | Archive 100 |
Are websites
reliable sources on articles about Roman emperors? Simple as that! :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
At first glance not being a professional I'd be reluctant to consider of them as references (though at the the first two might be quite useful as external links). As already mentioned in the posting above www.roman-emperors.org/ has however some editorial oversight by scholars and claims (most of its) articles are written by scholars, so you could consider it (barely) as a reliable web source, maybe slightly above a self published source by an expert author (see WP:SPS). So if you come across content sourced by it,I'd acceppt it at least temporarily as a reference, but try to replace it by a more reputable one if possible. If the site has a good reputation among historians though, which I don't know, it might be even acceptable without my current hesitation.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Anent Roman emperors - the Seaby's coin references are very good. [1] they contain much material rather hard to get otherwise. Collect ( talk) 20:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) 1660 destruction of Safed was an eye-opening experience. A new editor created an account and with a professed agenda of righting great wrongs--Ottoman cruelty to Jews AND world belief in Ottoman tolerance--created six or so articles in twenty-four hours, sourced to blogs, readers' letters to newspaper websites, polemical non-fact checked books, etc. Some of these articles have now been deleted, while editors have put a tremendous amount of work into fixing the others. In the case of the Safed article, an unsourced statement made in one place that Arabs killed an entire Jewish population in Safed in 1660, proliferated to numerous other unreliable sources and became something "everyone knows" without being sourceable to any primary documents, or respectable secondary sources, anywhere. It appears the historical reality is quite different: the Druze, involved in a rebellion against their Ottoman rulers, sacked Safed, causing most of the inhabitants to flee temporarily. Moral: it is possible to create really polemical crap history using crap sources. A section of WP:RS clarifying preferred sources for historical articles would have been a really great help. Also, responding to Blueboar and Kmhkmh: There is no more work involved in finding sources about the Emperor Constantine on Google Books than is involved in finding them at ilikeemperorconstantine.com. Its the same effort. I don't think anyone will be deterred from creating or editing historical articles if our policy called for a little more rigor, and article quality would benefit greatly. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 15:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There is a difference between disputed and disputed content and that's exactly why i was talking about correct content above. Of course editors can not use any website (potentially crappy), but the may websites or popular exposee considered as correct/reliable for sourcing basic largerly undisputed content (not crappy). This is a completely different scenario from an editor using arbitrary (unreliable) websites or blogs or engaging in OR using primary sources. Also if there are disputes over content the requirements for (temporary) increase and in doubt only academic peer reviewed sources can be used, but again my posting above referred the large amount of undisputed (historic) content we already have covered and which we still want to cover.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
@Jonathanwallace: And imho you are wrong for lay editors overly rigourous sourcing requirements does mean that there is significantly more work involved and there are access issues. Most academic peer reviewed sources require access to specific university librariers and online databases (usually being paywalled). Google books is great, but often does not provide a full preview and moreover it doesn't even provide access to the sources we want to have ultimately (peer reviewed journal articles, academic monographies). Also picking up random historic treatments in book form is hardly anymore reliable than various websites. Much of the historic nonsense spread overblogs and websites (as in the example you've mentioned) can be found in Google books as well. Why should a book by (reputable/reliable) historian X be anymore reliable than his website? That would be only the case if we restricted ourselves to a limited number of scientific publishers, but for arbitrary mainstream publishing companies, the (additional) editorial control regarding factual correctness is rather lax.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't participated above and I apologise if I am repeating something already said. Roman-emperors.org is very variable. Notably, some pages are fullish and have inline citations (e.g. [5]), some are sketchy and don't (e.g. [6]. Some are speculative, more like essays (e.g. [7]. That one does have inline citations, but years ago, when someone pasted it wholesale into Wikipedia, I began to check the assertions -- and found significant errors -- before I realised it was a copyvio). I would say that each article has to be taken on its merits, on the credentials of the author, on whether it gets cited elsewhere.
I'm not sure how active the site is. The list of pending essays is empty and was last revised in 2006 (whetyher that means that there have been no new pages since 2006, or whether the list has got forgotten, I don't know). And rew D alby 09:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I have been objecting and challenging a biography written about a living person, Vito Roberto Palazzolo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo), written by a man called Don Calo ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DonCalo). The discussion has been happening recently at Palazzolo's talk page; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#Answering_wikipedia.27s_requirements_in_BLP.2C_Verifiable_Sources.2C_Association_Fallacy_and_Lead
Personal motive
I have been gathering information on Vito Roberto Palazzolo for 3 years now with a view to writing his biography. I have nothing to gain by writing anything (in a book or in Wikipedia) idealizing him or getting him off the hook of his detractors. My single aim is to discover where the fire started that created the smoke, to wit: either Palazzolo was involved in illegal money laundering activities with the Mafia in 1981 and early 1982, or he is the victim if a conspiracy. I am looking at both options and both sides.
The subject
Apropos my plan to write a book: He is an interesting subject in many ways: as a Swiss Banker he was enormously successful and ran the fiduciary arm of one of the world's most prestigious banks; as a Sicilian he arrived on the scene at the bank when some of his inherited clients were laundering money (through Swiss banks) for the the heroin smuggling ring known as the "Pizza Connection", which was famously bust by Rudi Giuliani then Mayor of NY. Palazzolo was accused of many things in many courts thereafter, including money laundering, Mafia membership, drug running and even murder, but was never conclusively sentenced for anything except "dolus eventualis" in Switzerland in 1985, a conviction pitched somewhere between intent and negligence. But the allegations - from Sicily in Palermo - never stopped coming and pursued him even as far as South Africa where he lives now. There is even High Court narrative that mentions an unhealthy and illegal working relationship between Sicily and the Department of Justice in South Africa.
Conspiracy and transparency
What I am saying is that he is an interesting subject for a biography, highlighting many areas, as you can see. His life as a free man, however, defended by the rule of law (now in SA as well as Italy and the European Court of Human Rights), hangs in the balance. It is conceivable, that, given the court evidence over nearly 30 years, Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy and only an open and transparent rendition of his case, with all cards on the table, can either clear his name or indict him.
The media, Don Calo & Wikipedia
But that is not what he is getting in the media and so, by default, Wikipedia. Don Calo, who writes the Wikipedia biography of Palazzolo, uses only media articles as his source. Primarily scurrilous newspapers like the Mail & Guardian and the Sunday Independent. And so when people go to Wikipedia, the first port of call for knowledge about anyone or anything in the world, they get a biased, indeed, slanderous view of a man who, from the point of view of the High Courts in Switzerland, Italy and South Africa, is innocent. That may not be so but he must be given the opportunity in court, the media and at Wikipedia, for a free and fair trial.
All I am asking is that because this is a highly complex and long running affair, Palazzolo gets better treatment from Wikipedia. By which I mean specialist and comprehensive and fair, which one man reading the tabloid press, cannot do.
See below a few of the Points I have made in regard to Wikipedia's policies of neutrality and fairness in respect to a living person.
Reliable sources - You say that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source." This is the central part of my argument with Don Calo. I have to say again that the tabloid press, particularly in South Africa, is absolutely not a reliable source.
Significant Coverage - In Notability ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability), Wikipedia speaks of Significant Coverage: Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. This speaks for itself. Palazzolo needs significant coverage, which Don Calo does not provide.
Exceptional Coverage - In Verifiability ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability), Wikipedia speaks of Exceptional Coverage: "Claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. (This comes under "Exceptional claims" that require exceptional, high-quality sources)." This too is transparently clear. Palazzolo is the victim of a conspiracy (very hard to prove, for obvious reasons), and certainly claims the fact, in court.
Specialised subjects From How accurate is Wikipedia? ( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/10/wikipedia.php): "My very tentative conclusion, based on a just few sample queries, is that I hope no one relies on Wikipedia for anything very important. Its entries seem to be a strange mix of accurate statements and egregious errors.... Where wikipedia breaks down is in very specialised subjects, where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong." Palazzolo is a very specialised subject.
Casual innuendo From Reliability in Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia) the effect that Casual Innuendo in Wikipedia can have on the life of a living person: "Here's an article about a person where you can, with no accountability whatsoever, write any libel, defamation, or smear. It won't be a marginal comment with the social status of an inconsequential rant, but rather will be made prominent about the person, and reputation-laundered with the institutional status of an encyclopedia."
Systematic Bias - Also mentioned in Reliability: "Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices." This also applies.
Multiple, non-trivial published works - Also mentioned in Reliability and "Notability of article topics", comes a comment from Timothy Noah ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Noah) - To be notable, a Wikipedia topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." This is not the case with Wikipedia's Palazzolo.
Avoid gossip and feed-back loops - This is also mentioned in Reliability, this is the Information Loop where poorly sourced or biased information is fed to newspapers as fact, taken up by Wikipedia and fed back to newspapers, in turn. This applies.
Miss-use of Primary sources
These are just a few pointers regarding my contention with Wikipedia's article on Palazzolo. I have a great deal more on this subject, which is very complicated. What else would you like me to present to you and how can we lay this ghost to rest, because a living person is very insulted by the singular, one-sided, ill-informed line that Don Calo (Wikipedia) is taking.
Fircks ( talk) 17:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I responded here on the advice of Bbb23 (I suggest you take your contention to WP:RSN.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC))
I went into the Wiki foundation page and was informed that: "Hi! Please note that this page is only for discussing http://wikimediafoundation.org, the official Wikimedia Foundation website". So I expressed my concerns by sending an email to info@wikimedia.org. I could post a copy here but don't want to take up too much space repeating my case. In the meantime I am discussing the article with Bbb23 and Don Calo, who has today weighed into the conversation.
Fircks ( talk) 10:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your informed opinions. I realize that Palazzolo's case comes out of left-field, it is unique and requires special handling and to have been able to bring it this far, to you, is testament to wikipedia's credibility.
I know that trial transcripts are not allowed, according to your rule book. I don't want to hammer my case relentlessly but, given what has happened to this man, Palazzolo, and how it has happened, we have stumbled upon something both unique and important. When his story is written, Wikipedia and the given world view on people with unique biographies, will make up a large chapter. So I wish to point out that:
Fircks (
talk) 17:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I know I am taking up a lot of space on these pages but this is a complex case, all for the purposes of getting a fair hearing (in the media, therefore on wikipedia) for a living man who claims he is the victim of a conspiracy. What if he is? Shouldn't you see and review his story? His democratic and legal rights rest on your shoulders. Shouldn't you do him the honour (as per your rules on BLP) of an in-depth study of his case?
Please look at this one. If it's proof you want, I have it, and there is no stone I will not overturn for the sake of justice.
Fircks ( talk) 19:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I see what you are saying, that Wikipedia is not a battleground for my crusade to exonerate Palazzolo. Which I understand fully, and neither do I want to do that. Perhaps my emotive language gave the wrong impression.
I am not interested in taking Palazzolo off the hook if he is guilty, or using Wikipedia as his personal bandwagon. But I do want to apply Wikipedia's rules as fairly as possible which, as you know, are descriptive and not prescriptive, are about the underlying principle at play, but NOT about wikilawyering, are NOT about rules so much as good judgement, etc. And their fixed star is a Neutral Point of View, which is the following:
As it stands the article is:
So, using your guidelines, specifically, Palazzolo is owed a fair hearing. By which I mean that every court charge must be written into his BLP, as well as the concomitant ruling. You can't pick and choose court charges, rulings or sentences at will. They must all be mentioned (in order) and so get a broad, balanced view of the subject. Often there are years between the charge and the final ruling, but no matter. Often there is a subtext to the sentence or the ruling, which helps to fill in the missing pieces in the jigsaw. Which is why I always stated that this is a long complex case that very few people understand, least of all journalists in search of Mafia type headlines, (for whom Palazzolo is a Godsend).
Without using emotive language I must somehow express the single vital fact that Palazzolo deserves a fair hearing. The reason being that this is no ordinary BLP. By which I mean his case is: Significant (requiring more than just a routine news report), Special ("where you have only a handful of experts and much of the common wisdom on the subject is wrong") and Exceptional ("When proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them").
Written mostly in High Court journals and lawyers affidavits, his case is unique and so, above all else, we need both sides of the story; one is the prosecution, and the other is the defence (and counter prosecution). Then let the reader decide.
Fircks ( talk) 19:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. From "Understanding IAR" - "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way." The better way gives both sides (prosecution and defence) of Palazzolo's story. The rules say that Judges verdicts and carefully worded arguments by lawyers are inadmissible in a wiki BLP about a contentious figure, but the tabloid press is OK. For which reason Wikipedia can say, "The newspaper said Palazzolo was convicted of drug smuggling." And Palazzolo can never say, "The Judge acquitted me of that charge (drug smuggling), and said it was crazy to have brought the charge against me in the first place." Etc, etc.
Isn't it high time not to IAR, but to ignore THAT rule?
Thank you...
Fircks ( talk) 19:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Have I been barking up the wrong tree? I've been doing the rounds, following all the rules, dealing with them each in turn, following advice and all the time all I ask is that wikipedia give Palazzolo a fair hearing. There has been a lot of discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vito_Roberto_Palazzolo#The_article_is_a_mess, for example.
To date this has been my progress at Wikipedia:
OK, fingers crossed, because Don Calo's defamatory BLP remains intact and according to wikipedia's rules, that can't go on.
Thank you in any event.
Fircks ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to quote Freedom House as a reliable source in the article Northern Cyprus? After much wrangling have managed to tone down the language to the following:
"Freedom House has classified the perceived level of democratic and political freedom in Northern Cyprus as "free" since 2000 in its Freedom in the World report. [8]
However, I am still of the opinion that Freedom House cannot be used as a reliable source for the following reasons:
1. It is an advocacy organization concerning human rights.
2. 80 per cent of its funding comes from the government of the United States (the United States has military bases in Turkey, and Turkey has maintained a military occupation in the northern part of Cyprus since 1974).
3. The ratings that are being issued, concerning the quality of democracy (and human rights), do not appear to take reality in to consideration (for example, there is no consideration for the owners of the vast majority of land and property, as acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the displaced persons who were displaced during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and who are not allowed to return to their homes and who have no right to vote despite legally owning most of the land and property in "Northern Cyprus").
4. Even use of the word "perceived" which explains that the rating is based on perceptions and not the actual situation legitimizes a rating which has no bearing on reality.
5. Not even the enclaved are considered. The enclaved are christian Cypriots who remained in villages after the invasion (pockets of christianity within an occupied muslim territory) and their freedom of movement is severely restricted to the point that individuals who leave these villages for hospital treatment are not allowed to return to their homes by the occupation regime. More information about the enclaved can be read at:
http://www.cyprusnet.com/content.php?article_id=2880&subject=standalone
Nipsonanomhmata
(Talk) 13:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
This seems like one of our regular "admissibility" vs. "weight" disputes. I agree with Nipsonanomhmata that majority funding by the U.S. government (if correct) would put the independence of the organization into question, but it is being referenced for its own opinion, not an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Therefore, the best compromise is to cite it in the wording given above, balanced by well sourced opposing viewpoints. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 11:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The Pioneer fund is the subject of various serious accusations. Are they allowed to present their view on this according to "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" on the Pioneer fund page? This being an example where they present their view on various accusations against them: [11] Miradre ( talk) 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess the best way to resolve this would be to seek guidance on the question of how one determines the extent to which an organization like the Pioneer Fund is allowed to defend itself against it's critics in the article. I'm sure the answer lies somewhere between "not at all" and "point by point argument, counter argument, and rebuttal". Likewise guidelines for inclusion criticism would also be useful. aprock ( talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Miradre is continuing to lobby for the use of Lynn's history on Talk:Pioneer Fund. [15] He cites a book by Helmuth Nyborg as a positive review, which he claims is written by someone who has not received a grant from the Pioneer Fund. However, Lynn's history states (P 354), "In 1996 the Pioneer Fund made a grant to Helmut Nyborg of the University of Aarhus in Denmark to study the effects of inbreeding in Daghestan in the Northern Caucasus of the former Soviet Union." So Nyborg is a Pioneer grantee. Mathsci ( talk) 08:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The point of asking this here is to get feedback from uninvolved editors. From the fact that Mathsci was sanctioned in the arbitration case linked to by Miradre, it's obvious that he's a long-time combatant in this topic area. It's not helpful that this discussion is being dominated by clearly involved editors. As far as I can tell, only one truly uninvolved person (Collect) has commented on this request, who has said that we should err on the side of giving an organization a chance to defend itself. Miradre, do you think that's enough of an answer, or should you get more feedback from uninvolved editors? Boothello ( talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The original question was "The Pioneer fund is the subject of various serious accusations. Are they allowed to present their view on this according to "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" on the Pioneer fund page?" The first answer is that "they" should not be presenting "their" view: if done at all, it should be done by editors with no conflict of interest. The second is that the extent to which the accusations and their rebuttals should be presented is not a matter for this board, but, as stated above, the article talk page. The only aspect of the original question relevant here is, the extent to which the Pioneer Fund's own publications are reliable sources. They should be reliable for their own opinions (supporting statements such as "The Pioneer Fund's position on X is Y") and for noncontroversial, nonselfinterested data about themselves (although a consensus might need to be formed about whether such statements should be qualified by "According to the Pioneer Fund, Z") and independent sources for the latter would always be preferred. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus ( talk) 06:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Byliner purports in their press release to be a serious publisher run by experienced editors. Their inaugural work is an article by Jon Krakauer about Greg Mortenson. Mortenson was the subject of a 60 Minutes expose broadcast yesterday, and the Krakauer article makes similar allegations. Krakauer was an early supporter of Mortenson's foundation, and a respected author of non-fiction. If Krakauer self-published the article it would not be usable for assertions about the BLP, but I would think that it would be usable for assertions about the related charitable foundation. It is not self-published, but it is published by a source with no reputation good or bad, for fact-checking and accuracy. What do people think about using this as a source for the Mortenson biography? Will Beback talk 01:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There's also a short report by al Jazeera English now : [18]-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 16:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Related to this discussion at WP:AN, I would like to get the community's input on the reliability of Wisegeek.com as a source. Previous discussions can be found here and here.
Also, as part of this discussion, should links to Wisegeek be removed from articles? Links being links in the external links section and links in the references section. Previous discussions did not get much input, so the more input the better. Thanks. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 07:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Freelance Writing Jobs!
We pay writers per article. Current rates range from $10 to $14 depending on the article topic. Writers know exactly how much they will receive for writing an article before locking it.
wiseGEEK writers are asked to write at least five articles per week, or 20 articles a month, on average.
Apply now!— [19]
I think this discussion has now reached a consensus. As I see it, there seems no controversy at all about wisegeek links which are not directly used as cites, so I'm now going to do a quick pass down my list and remove any of the remaining wisegeek links that are not used directly as a cite, or are used as a cite where another cite is also given, or where the article is a medical article. I'll then revisit the more complex cases a bit later. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Are Herodotus's history books considered primary source or they are secondary sources? Specially when it comes to ancient Greece history?-- Penom ( talk) 15:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Al-Masudi, a well-known historian in middle-east(born c. 896, died September 956), wrote a history book named The Meadows of Gold. In his book, he talks about the events from centuries before he was born until his own time. My question: Is The Meadows of Gold considered a primary source for the events that took place before Al-Masudi's birth? Kazemita1 ( talk) 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am having issues with WLU on appropriate sourcing. He/She/They deletes info and says it is not allowed without "helping" in any manner. I would like to know if this source is ok. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Suzanne_Segal&diff=424898476&oldid=424881789 I called the Institute and cited them as a source after they confirmed my question. Since it is a "contactable source" is this valid, or how can I better make reference? Or is just the name sufficient since it is a "real" entitiy? Thank you. Vanlegg ( talk) 19:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this source, Encyclopaedia of the Muslim World, reliable for referencing? It appears from the Sigurimi article to use Wikipedia as its source. It has also been referenced elsewhere on the project as a source. It seems that large tracts of text have been incorporated into this article from other published sources eg Albania - A Country Study. RashersTierney ( talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The sentence in the first paragraph of the Kent Hovind article that reads "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research" is a POV sentence which of course violates Wikipedia's neutrality clause for its articles. It then uses as its source a website called Talk Origins which is heavily biased towards evolution and misrepresents some of its claim. Here is an example of what I am talking about:
First, the footnotes to that sentence link to talkorigins.org, which is a pro-evolution site so it is clearly not even an objective source. Second, the footnotes in question from talkorigins misrepresent their sources. In reponse to Hovind's claim that the geological column does not exist anywhere except in textbooks, they state, "John Woodmorappe, a young-earth creationist, has admitted that representative strata from the Cambrian to the Tertiary have been discovered lying in their proper order in Iran, by the Caspian, the Himalayas, Indonesia, Australia, North Africa, Canada, South America, Japan, Mexico, and the Philippines!" However, that statement by talkorigins is contradicted by Mr. Morappe himself who had this to say in an article titled, "The Geologic Column: Does it Exist?" : "Sometimes the motives of creationist researchers are challenged in an attempt to defend the concept of the geologic column. Consider, for instance, Glenn Morton’s tale of how I ‘set out to prove that the geologic column did not exist’, and then was forced to admit that it did. This fantasy has been picked up and repeated by other anti-creationists on the Internet without first checking what I actually wrote. The fact of the matter is, I in no sense tried to prove that the geologic column did not exist. The truth is that I already knew it didn’t! Nor was I in any way surprised to find that there are some places where lithologies attributed to all ten geologic periods can be found. I had known that long before. So had other informed creationists,[9] as pointed out earlier. In fact, I said so plainly on the first page of my article."
Morappe also goes on to say towards the end of his article, "There are a number of locations on the earth where all ten periods of the Phanerozoic geologic column have been assigned. However, this does not mean that the geological column is real. Firstly, the presence or absence of all ten periods is not the issue, because the thickness of the sediment pile, even in those locations, is only a small fraction (8–16% or less) of the total thickness of the hypothetical geologic column. Without question, most of the column is missing in the field. " "The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?
Talkorigins then goes on to cite as another peice of evidence a second-hand relay of a phonecall between Edward Babinski and Glenn Morton. the same Glenn Morton who Morappe disputed in the paragraph above. So to say that this is research and scientific evidence is TOTALLY not accurate and clearly point of view. The proper sentence in the first paragraph should read, "Hovind's views, not surprisingly, are challenged by evolutionists," which is a factual and objective sentence
Since the source cited is not an objective source and heavily biased, I would like the inclusion of this source contested as a reliable source, and the sentence tagged as a POV sentence. Thank you. Dimestore ( talk) 14:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, there's a quite complex issue at Diego Arria over the inclusion of the Commons image File:HaciendaLaCarolina.jpg, which is being used to make a factual claim, and the source for the image (a blog) isn't reliable (per WP:RS). (The blog is the personal blog of User:Attarparn, who is the person who uploaded the image and inserted it into the article.) The matter could rest there, except after I initially removed the image, an OTRS ticket materialised on Commons, being an email from Attarparn forwarding permission to use the image from Diego Arria. I don't know to what extent this can be accepted as reliable verification, rather than mere permission for use of the image. (Apart from anything else, the most it could verify is what Arria claims the image shows, unless some independent source can verify the date and subject.)
I posted at WP:BLPN and got no answer. I posted at the Commons OTRS board and got some clarification. I concluded that the OTRS ticket was resolved in a manner that indicates the image cannot be used in a Wikipedia article in any way that makes a factual claim (and I can't see how any use of it can avoid doing that). So, where do we go from here? Attarparn (now signing as realname "Dr Ulf Erlingsson") continues to want to have the image in the article with a factual-claim caption that has no reliable source as far as I can see. Rd232 talk 15:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well I guess the current form is OK, with caption "La Carolina taken by Diego Arria one month before the expropriation, according to Arria.". Though it still makes a BLP claim sourced to a Commons upload/ OTRS ticket. Rd232 talk 07:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
THIS site. I couldn't see anything about whether it has a writing staff or not, plus I'm not great at judging these things. I'm looking to cite it in the article Manhunter (film), to support that the film won the Critics Award at the Cognac Festival du Film Policier. The quote in the article is:
The thriller introduced the character of cannibalistic psychiatrist Hannibal Lecter, then played by Brian Cox, and brought Mann a Critics Award from the Cognac Festival du Film Policier and a nomination for Best Motion Picture at the 1987 Edgar Allan Poe Awards.
I'm looking to use this citation to replace the current citation of the film's IMDB page, which is understandably suspect. GRAPPLE X 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
in the case of longevity claims? I think it is. The World's Oldest People WikiProject could use some outside guidance here. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 13:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Which source did you wish to discuss the reliability of? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus ( talk) 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
How do we stand regarding this issue? For exemple, do we accept a work of a Palestinian historian to source Israeli historical events, or basicaly any work of someone who can potentialy have a conflict of interess regarding the issue debating? FkpCascais ( talk) 00:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Science in medieval Islam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Opinions requested regarding the reliability of Sandra Harding's Is Science Multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies: Indiana University Press, 1998
Pages 28-29 and 35 are used in support of the following paragraph
The civilization of ancient Greece was centered on the eastern Mediterranean and northern Africa, and did not interact with most of Europe.[1] When Greek learning was later discovered and claimed by European science during the Renaissance, it was not the ancient Greek knowledge, but rather the result of centuries of refinements and advances based upon that knowledge by scientists from Islamic civilization.[2][3]
Thanks - Aquib ( talk) 12:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I was curious if this is a reliable source, and also if it's apporpriate to Wikipedia for the characters it mentions in articles about them. http://www.cracked.com/article_17400_the-8-shittiest-transformer-disguises.html Mathewignash ( talk) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
An editor is seeking to add this information into the article Salome:
"According to "Letter of Herod To Pilate the Governor", Herod's daughter was playing in the pool with ice on the surface until it broke under and decapitated her. With Herod's wife holding holding her daughters head.
In the passage Herod to Pontius Pilate the Governor of Jerusalem, Peace:
First as an Ip with this edit [21], then when they created an account with these edits [22](which I reverted with this edit summary "material from self published site that may be real or not, no names, publisher or other info given") and [23], which they cite to [1] [2] these two sources. As the 2 websites they used dont seem to have any editorial, publisher, names etc. I question their use as a reliable sources, and the book I do not have access to, so can not check. Does anyone have access to the book and what are the opinions on the websites? I want to know before I either remove the info or rewrite it so it is comprehensible. Thoughts? and thanks in advance. He iro 18:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
References
In Islamic schools and branches article's lead there is a sentence sayingThere is a hadith which states "differences of opinion in my community are a blessing". Is this line really necessary to be in introductory section?
Again the source hadith is not very authentic.
In here I really disagree that the hadith is authentic and I even not asked for source there. I found that the description source, (i.e. the order of who descried the hadith) is not a very strong one and this hadith may be considered as a weak or non-auhtentic hadith to many Islamic scholars. So, my suggestion is to remove this disputable hadith. Only finding a hadith do not make it authentic, there are method of classifying hadith in regard to authenticity. -- নাফী ম. সাধ nafSadh talk | contribs 08:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I took a brief look at the other two sources given above. One is a snippet view of a student publication (which does not automatically make it not reliable, American law reviews which are respectable sources are edited by students) which says that some think the hadith is false. Snippet views are suspect as sources because sometimes the full text is quite different than what the snippet indicates. The other book is a publication by the Islamic Supreme Council of America, about page here. Presented in excerpt view, it indeed mentions the hadith in a footnote, without further analysis or discussion of its antecedents. I therefore think use of the hadith in the lede, which was peripheral to the main issues discussed in the first place, really raises more questions than it answers, and that it was best to take it out. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 10:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have been working with a Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks ( BPOE) historian, Norm Donovan. We are trying to capture the history of local Elks lodges' creation date, mergers, disbanding, etc. This fraternity spans over 130 years of american history and the official records are spotty. Therefor we feel that Wikipedia is a great archive for this information as well as a way to reach out to others who may be able to fill in the content about their local lodge. We also feel this could be a great starting point for each local Elks lodge to spur their local history page. We believe there is little controversy or opinion on this page.
I am concerned as to how to cite the source of our original collection. The wiki page in question is Elks lodges. Here are our current sources posted online.
http://www.tommyjones.org/salisburyelks/elkshistory/miscdocuments/lodgeNameNumber/030208.NUM.doc
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomhung357 ( talk • contribs) 17:26, 25 April 2011
You might consider going to http://www.wikia.com/Wikia and starting your own Elkapedia. That way you could compile unpublished research, oral histories, and other things that might not pass muster on Wikipedia. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Commons has a photo that was downloaded from flickr. The photo shows people standing in a posed group in normal street clothing. The flickr page claims it is a netball team in Malawi, but the person who uploaded the photo to flickr is not the Wikipedia editor who uploaded it to Commons. Is flickr a reliable source for the fact that this is not some other group of people? This situation will come up many times in the future. Racepacket ( talk) 18:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
My immediate response was "no", but as noted the standard is "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images". The publisher is contactable on flickr, the date, time, and place of the photon is given, so it's theoretically verifiable, and there doesn't appear to be any reason to doubt his description. The publisher of a photo would be an RS for the content of the photo. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 20:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
To me it is a question of credibility. When I upload a photo to Wikipedia, I know it is supposed to be serious and earnest. However, when someone uploads a photo with caption to flickr, it can be tonge in cheek or a practical joke intended for a limited audience. How does Wikipedia know that the flickr caption was written in good faith? Racepacket ( talk) 00:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
We should not apply the full standards of reliable sources to pictures. If there was *any* indication in the picture to indicate these were netball players, I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I think generally we should trust photographers to not stage fake photos. So, I'll trust this photo is exactly what it appears to be. It appears to be a bunch of a women standing around, wearing clothes, that are incompatible with playing sports like netball. It might be useful in illustrating what some women in the area wear. The photo really has nothing to do with netball. Netballers are not some unique special looking people. The reader viewing the photo will not be better informed of what a netballer looks like. Perhaps there are some sports where the players have a very unique look (like Sumo wrestlers or jockies), and a photo of some players would help illustrate this. Even then, that would apply to the elites (it would be stupid if I did Sumo wrestling, and then photographed myself later in plain clothes, and said that was what Canadian Sumo wrestlers looked like). -- Rob ( talk) 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The caption should be verifiable and sourced (which it is not), and I find the arguments advanced by Rob to be far more convincing than the responses offered by the image proponents. We need to guard against editors finding obscure pictures on flickr and then insisting on their inclusion in articles just to show off how they can find a really obscure photo. Do we need a group photo in street clothes of the Jamaican bobsled team or should we use a photo taken at the Winter Olympics? The talk page says, "The point of the picture is to illustrate who plays netball in Malawi. It is not intended to illustrate a game of netball being played in Malawi." If the text of the article does not describe or characterize the demographics of who plays netball in Malawi, how can we justify including a photo in the article on such a rationale? Finally, should the picture's caption have a footnote? Racepacket ( talk) 21:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Personal animosities aside, how can you tell from the picture they are netball team? It seems a poor illustration to begin with, not being self-evident. So it requires a citation to make that claim in the article (even just in the caption). Is the flickr photographer who took/posted it a WP:RS? Tijfo098 ( talk) 23:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've been expanding Nobody's Perfect article, but there are some claims that some sources I initially provided are unreliable, however they provide some key informations (physical release date, impact date, videoclip review), so I'd like to know if these [25] [26] [27] [28] are reliable, thanks in advance. Regards Eduemoni ↑talk↓ 01:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Boxer Rebellion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User:John Smith's has attempted to use a Book written by an author with zero academic credentials, as a source, despite the fact that the book claims war crimes are the result of a "generational sin pattern", and that christianity is the one true religion and everything else is essentially lies.
the only thing about him when i googled him that stated his credentials were- Esther C. Stanley is a published author. A published credit of Esther C. Stanley is Abundance of Rain.
Absolutely NO Phd, degrees, MB, or anything in General history at all, let along chinese history.
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29- "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books"
Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources
Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#According_to_you_then.2C_everything_is_unprovable
Abundance of Rain is NOT a reliable source. A book that says- "We can see in chinese history how broken covenants and violations of god's laws, judgements, and bitter root expectations have sown curses and reaped violence, revenge, and murder" does NOT qualify as a reliable source.
Mr. Stanley is a christian, and writes from a christian POV. Now, being a christian is not an impediment to reliability, but having no academic credentials and writing from a religious christian POV is. The aim of his book is to glorify christianity and claim all other religions are false. He has no academic credentials whatsover, let alone credentials in China or history.
I might as well quote "lord of the rings" or "harry potter", and claim wizards really exist here on wikipedia.
Now, suppose I give John Smith some leeway, and allow that Esther C. Stanley, despite the fact that his entire book is about how christianity is the one true religion and all non christians are damned to torture and suffering, and claims atrocities are the result of a "generational sin pattern" that he did use some citations, like Forsychth and "The boxer rising" (not neutral by the way, since they were made by the American Bible Society), that did state how many Chinese christians were murdered. However, at the last sentence regarding rape , torture, and mutilation, he provides no source!- [33]
And I have removed the edit that User:John Smith's made. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 21:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The dispute is reseolved, this can be archived now. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The website baseball-reference.com is a highly-regarded baseball statistics website, frequently used as the primary reference on WP. However, it has a wiki called the BR Bullpen. Most of its material was copied from WP in 2006, but can and has been updated since. Since it is also a wiki, sourcing can be a problem. Therefore, isn't this a fork and shouldn't it be disqualified as a source or external link (not 100% of the time of course). There is a Template:Bullpen that is concerning (it seems to be used mainly in the baseball portal). Here are the pages that use the Bullpen website: [34]. I was going to add the site to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks but figured I should check here first. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log-off.) -- 64.85.220.34 ( talk) 06:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
(Let me know if this should be at BLPN instead - I wasn't sure.)
In this edit, I removed these statements from Hamas school bus attack:
In lead:
A Palestinian Authority official commented that "the bus wasn't that badly damaged", adding that Israel is racist and apartheid.
In body:
Omar al-Ghoul, senior advisor to Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, said on Palestinian Authority television: "The bus wasn't that badly damaged. Israel uses the attack on the bus as an excuse for its latest war crime against our people. Israel is a country that was founded on aggression and colonialism and it lives on the continuation of bloodshed, war and violence. The racist Israeli apartheid aggression is currently focused on Gaza, under the pretext of a shell being fired at an Israeli bus."
This is cited to this article from the Christian Broadcasting Network. Jalapenos do exist restored the text without commenting on the source's reliability.
I searched further in Google News and couldn't find it anywhere else but in other laughably partisan sources. I argue that if al-Ghoul really did make this statement, we should be able to find a real source on it, not a source whose agenda includes discrediting Palestinians. Absent a real source for this claim, it should be removed per WP:V and WP:BLP.
-- Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this source sufficient to cite the claim that "He [Cottrell] also served in an editorial role for the "liberal/progressive" magazine Adventist Today, [1] and was a consulting editor to Spectrum magazine." on the Raymond Cottrell article? BelloWello ( talk) 22:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Arthur Nelson Patrick possesses a relevant PhD from a research intensive Australian university (Newcastle, 1991: "Christianity and culture in colonial Australia [manuscript]: selected Catholic, Anglican, Wesleyan and Adventist perspectives, 1891-1900"). While he has had a limited research career (two books, one his PhD, both by partisan presses of a higher quality), he is an expert in religious history. As such Arthur Patrick (2009) A brief, annotated introduction to the field of adventist studies for higher degree students (unpublished) Cooranbong, NSW: Avondale College. (available online) is reliable for the statement that "He [Cottrell] also served in an editorial role for the "liberal/progressive" magazine Adventist Today, [1] and was a consulting editor to Spectrum magazine." on Raymond Cottrell. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Another editor and I disagree over whether the following text with the following source is permissible at Transgender. I hope to have the input of other editors to help forestall the obvious edit war:
The essay appears on Dr. Lawrence' website. So, the essay is a WP:SPS, but becuase she is a well-published expert in the field of that essay (transsexualism), her comments are a legit WP:RS for the above statement.
At least, that's my view.
Examples of Anne Lawrence' published scholarship on the topic include:
Her complete c.v. is also downloadable from her website:
http://www.annelawrence.com/lawrence_cv.pdf
So, my question is the basic one: Is Lawrence' SPS a legit RS for the above claim?
— James Cantor (
talk) 01:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Is
Atari HQ (also called Atari Gaming Headquarter) high-quality enough to be considered a reliable source?
It's a gaming website that has been recognized with awards by
USA Today,
Entertainment Weekly, and
several others. The staff seems to be quite small, but it consists of
Les Caron (more or less unknown, but the founder of the website),
Keita Iida (a published video game commentator who has been cited here at WP several times in several articles), and
Marty Goldberg (another published video game commentator writing for Retro Gamer magazine, and former site director/editor of GameSpy/IGN's ClassicGaming.Com). The website has been cited by several other video game websites that are considered reliable (e.g.
kotaku citation,
1up citation,
gamespy citation, etc.) and it is also cited by numerous WP articles. From my brief review of it, the information appears to be factually accurate and well-written. But there have been some questions regarding its reliability recently. I've invited the relevant parties to review the discussion I'm starting here, but I am most interested in outside (3rd party) views. Thanks. -
Thibbs (
talk) 20:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: A few more reliable sources that have cited or otherwise given notice to Atari HQ include: Wired magazine and a number of books including Apple Confidential 2.0: The Definitive History of the World's Most Colorful Company, Design and Use of Serious Games, and Phoenix The Rise and Fall of Videogames. - Thibbs ( talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
first source - Would that be considered a RS for a fan made remake of Maniac Mansion or even the original? 陣 内 Jinnai 15:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for facts related to the Israeli-Arab conflict? The website ( [37]) provides no details about the people behind it, just a PO box address and a phone number, alongside an info@... e-mail address. It seems like an advocacy site, featuring "Move over, AIPAC" logos and an "Israeli Lobby Archive". A Google News search shows not a single mainstream source quoting its research ( http://www.google.com/search?q=Institute+for+Research+Middle+Eastern+Policy+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=diX&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&tbm=nws&source=hp&q=%22Institute+for+Research+Middle+Eastern+Policy%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2f302dc92096f810), just two press releases issued by the group itself and one blog carrying a reprint of an article form the "Israeli Lobby Archive". Two for the show ( talk) 21:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
IRmep appears to be in the business of declassifying documents and then providing analysis. For example, they declassified the FBI file of Abraham Feinberg, a major Israel lobbyist, revealing that he was a draft-dodger, Israeli nuclear weapons funding coordinator, and smuggler.
Since most of the content that Wikipedia references to IRmep's Israel lobby archive are from government organizations, there doesn't appear to be any issue about their credibility. It appears that many Zionists do not like the fact that they publish declassified documents. But as far as the rules go, there isn't (yet) any reason to ban a great source of information for not being just another Israeli parastatal org.
An editor has contended at Talk:Russophobia that RIA Novosti is a reliable source—without reservation, and suggested that should an editor feel otherwise they bring the issue here. RIA Novosti is the official media outlet of the Russian government. As such, general considerations of reliability aside, I maintain that where RIA Novosti reports on areas of contention between itself and its near-abroad neighbors, it can be held to be reliable only insofar as it reflects the official Russian position, and should regarding all topics in such ares of contention (Baltic states, Waffen SS, Nazis; frozen conflict zone: Transnistria, South Ossetia, et al.,...) be appropriately attributed (i.e., official Russian source, Russian source, etc.) and not be represented to be objectively reliable. At the article, the specific example centers around a Latvian individual who was a member of the Waffen SS Latvian Legion. The position of the Russian government is that the Latvian Legion were SS war criminals convicted at Nuremberg—when, in fact, the Latvian Legion served as Allied guards during the trials. Accordingly, any declaration by RIA Novosti regarding Latvia, the Latvian Legion, and Nazism in this particular case—and regarding other geopolitical/historical areas of conflict—can only be represented as official Russian opinion.
I should mention that in the past, editors favorable to the official Russian position regarding these areas of contention have maintained that RIA Novosti is the Russian equivalent of the British BBC. Nothing could be a further misrepresentation as the BBC is an independent news organization while RIA Novosti (also including their English language TV presence and web site, Russia Today) is most certainly not.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
RIA Novosti is a 100% reliable source and widely used as such in the academic world and the world press. Like most media organisations, in addition to plain news they publish all kinds of opinions - those which are highly critical of the state and those which are not. The specific piece which caused Vecrumba to launch this thread is [40] - and there is nothing wrong with it. The author is Aleksander Vasilyev, Member of the Board and Executive Director of the Baltic Forum [41], a credible expert. Simply because an editor doesn't like one opinion piece is no grounds for calling the publisher an unreliable source. Vecrumba has provided no evidence to support his claim. If no evidence to support the claim is provided, editors are forced to only judge the claim by Vecrumba's own credibility. Nanobear ( talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC) (refactored) Nanobear ( talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
My suggestion to bring this here was more in jest, seeing as attempts to exclude Russian sources from WP has been the modus operandi of numerous editors for sometime now, most often in their attempts to present WP:TRUTH (their version of the truth). Take for example Talk:Lists_of_most_common_surnames#RIA_Novosti.27s_scope_of_reliability where that verifiable fact that Ivanov is the most common surname in Estonia was removed from the article based only on the fact that RIA Novosti was the outlet responsible for printing what was inserted. Nevermind that it quoted an Estonian source, which in turn referred to the census, the mere fact that RIA Novosti printed it was enough reason to remove the information from the article --- of course based purely on it presenting information that one doesn't want to see because it casts doubts on their facts and truth. I never said thaat at any stage that RIA Novosti is reliable "without reservation" but as I have said many times it meets the requirements of WP:RS as much as any Latvian, Estonian, Lithuanian, European, American media outlet.
I do wonder if we would be having this discussion if http://www.chas-daily.com was being used as a source -- it is the largest Russian-language media source in Latvia, and often takes a harsh line on official Baltic histiography.
As is the case with all media outlets, as noted below, is opinion must be separated from fact, and attributed accordingly. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 22:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Also, I have no objection to using Russian or even Soviet sources, I have used the Concise Latvian SSR Encyclopedia and other Soviet era sources. I only object to the opinion of the (departed Soviet or) Russian government sourced as factual and objective without being attributed to an official source. That Lācis is a Nazi is at best an opinion (aside from BLP issues) and should be attributed. Period. There is no
WP:DISCRIMINATION in doing that. The concept and function of Russian state media is a Soviet anachronism and I find that anyone would paint it as equivalent to western media outlets such as CNN quite remarkable.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 15:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime, we've pretty much had a rehash along party (no pun intended) lines, that is, an airing out of the status quo on both sides of the issue by interested parties. Some outside observations would be helpful. Perhaps if all participating here to date promised not to bite...
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
How are the credentials of Voice of Russia viewed? I wish to use it as a source for some information regarding the current civil war in Libya. I do know that Russian state sources are viewed as being on the sketchy side of things, so I wanted to come here to see if a *NEUTRAL* party could weigh in. That means you guys above me should refrain from commenting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 22:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I would invite participants of the discussion above this one to not participate in this discussion so we don't repeat the same discussion (as anticipated and originally requested by the editor posing their question). And let's dispense with Putin eating babies, such rhetoric only polarizes the discussion and immediately drives off any outside editors. No one is going to enter a discussion where ludicrous contentions are being made which reduce the discourse to yet another nationalist on nationalist mud wrestling match. I will keep my participation to the section above.
PЄTЄRS J V ►
TALK 15:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Does this self-published book that lists a previous version of the page, or this page which does not even mention the word "progressive" sufficient sourcing to say, "Some feel his [Cottrell's] veiws label Cottrell as a " progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment.", or would it fail under WP:RS, WP:SYN, WP:OR and WP:CIRCULAR? BelloWello ( talk) 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Cottrell could be labeled a "progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment.[14] While mostly dormant during his academic years, Cottrell's progressive/reinterpretative views began to increasingly manifest themselves after retirement.
Cottrell was a founder of Adventist Today,[6] a liberal/progressive Adventist magazine first published in 1993. He and others at Loma Linda had conceived of the idea for a new magazine in the Autumn of the previous year.[12] As well as contributing articles, he was editor and had the title of editor emeritus for the remainder of his life.[6]
Just like the other source says "discontinued" right? I know they are 2 separate issues but I figured I would use your own logic. Fountainviewkid ( talk) 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
See discussion above, the question is, is this self-published book on the web a reliable source for the purpose of verifying ""Some feel his [Cottrell's] veiws label Cottrell as a " progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment."? BelloWello ( talk) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
In a recent edit, content was added referenced to the website in question that appears to be an advocacy organization. Furthermore in this specific edit, it does not link to specific content that supports the newly added material.
More over, in looking at this article, I have found other edits by the user that use the same source which I am creating this new entry on ( see the change in the San Diego article which adds basically the same content, same at the Coronado article, etc.); also the choice of the user name may fall under WP:ORGNAME. I hope that by bringing this up, that this is not considered WP:HOUND. I want to assume good faith, and see that the editor is doing what they believe is best by adding content from a source that they have a vested interest in, however to advocate said interest with a reference that may not be a reliable source questions any material attributed to it. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Keeping with WP:CANVASSING#Appropriate notification, I am inviting editors from appropriate WikiProjects relating the the Chula Vista article to this discussion. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Third opinions are required and solicited. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
In the past this source was not seen as reliable and was quickly dismissed as a WP:SPS. However, per WP:IRS, the source is published, and has editorial oversight. Furthermore, as the material that it is documenting is usually that of historical markers placed by history organizations, or government entities, the information provided on the marker themselves can usually be referenced elsewhere. I ask as I am seeking to use information from the following page.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Third opinions are required and solicited. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)